News & Discussion: O-Bahn

[abc]

The only figures I can find are saying that the fossil fuel industry is substantially more highly subsidised than renewables.

Whether that's true or not, it'd be a good thing to cut the subsidies and see what the market did in response.

'renewables' would cease to exist overnight

Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but since the only figures I can find suggest that fossil fuels receive far higher subsidies, do you have any reason to back up your opinion? The diesel fuel rebate costs more per year than the army.

Do you really think if fossil fuels were so unsustainable they required subsidies to be economically viable we would've had an industrial revolution at all?
Just think about what you're saying here.

[Nort]

'renewables' would cease to exist overnight

Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but since the only figures I can find suggest that fossil fuels receive far higher subsidies, do you have any reason to back up your opinion? The diesel fuel rebate costs more per year than the army.

Do you really think if fossil fuels were so unsustainable they required subsidies to be economically viable we would've had an industrial revolution at all?
Just think about what you're saying here.

Hahaha.

If the economics of something made it the best option for 19th century industry it clearly must still be the best option in the 21st century.

[rubberman]

'renewables' would cease to exist overnight

Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but since the only figures I can find suggest that fossil fuels receive far higher subsidies, do you have any reason to back up your opinion? The diesel fuel rebate costs more per year than the army.

Do you really think if fossil fuels were so unsustainable they required subsidies to be economically viable we would've had an industrial revolution at all?
Just think about what you're saying here.

Sigh. In the industrial revolution, coal, water driven mill wheels, and wood were the competing energy sources in the UK. Coal was more efficient then than its competitors, so it prevailed.

Now, it's coal, vs nuclear, vs hydro vs wind vs solar. Nuclear is extremely expensive, and there's no serious study done in Australia showing it to be viable, nor are any energy companies proposing it.

Ao the question then is fossil fuel vs renewables. Since renewables as we know them today didn't exist in the era of the industrial revolution, how is it remotely relevant to the debate today? Think about what you are saying here.

Why not phase out subsidies on each?

[Listy]

Sigh. In the industrial revolution, coal, water driven mill wheels, and wood were the competing energy sources in the UK. Coal was more efficient then than its competitors, so it prevailed.

Sort of OT, but one of the main reasons coal became a primary energy source in Britain (and not elsewhere in Europe) was because by about 1600 Britain was completely deforested & after the Napoleonic wars British government heavily subsidised the coal industry for decades to help it reach the point where it was self sufficient and of comparable usefulness to the wood based charcoal industry. It had been known in Europe at least since Roman times (& probably even earlier in Asia) that you can smelt iron to make steel using coal, but it was always considered extremely poor quality compared to steel produced using charcoal. The Napoleonic wars disrupted Britain's relatively easy access to cheap Baltic wood, & without wood you couldn't make steel of the quality needed for cannons and guns, so the British government started providing massive taxpayer funded subsidies to the coal mines that did exist to help them grow, and develop the smelting technologies required to produce steel of comparable (and eventually superior) quality to charcoal.
TLDR Coal was *eventually* more efficient than wood, but it took decades of sustained government subsidies and investment to make it so. This in turn set the stage for the economic fortunes of Europe in the 20th Century - The nations that did invest in coal (eg Britain and later Germany) leapt ahead, the ones that thought that the old ways were good enough (France, Russia, Poland etc) fell behind.

[abc]

Of course you are entitled to an opinion, but since the only figures I can find suggest that fossil fuels receive far higher subsidies, do you have any reason to back up your opinion? The diesel fuel rebate costs more per year than the army.

Do you really think if fossil fuels were so unsustainable they required subsidies to be economically viable we would've had an industrial revolution at all?
Just think about what you're saying here.

Sigh. In the industrial revolution, coal, water driven mill wheels, and wood were the competing energy sources in the UK. Coal was more efficient then than its competitors, so it prevailed.

Now, it's coal, vs nuclear, vs hydro vs wind vs solar. Nuclear is extremely expensive, and there's no serious study done in Australia showing it to be viable, nor are any energy companies proposing it.

Ao the question then is fossil fuel vs renewables. Since renewables as we know them today didn't exist in the era of the industrial revolution, how is it remotely relevant to the debate today? Think about what you are saying here.

Why not phase out subsidies on each?

sigh all you want...its relevant because you're suggesting fossil fuels need subsidies to be economically viable...which is pure poppycock

if we are having to subsidize these industries its only because of the climate accords which we signed up to are adding a tariff that needs to be offset ...but no sane country has done such a thing

why do you think the cost of living crisis happened?

[rubberman]

Do you really think if fossil fuels were so unsustainable they required subsidies to be economically viable we would've had an industrial revolution at all?
Just think about what you're saying here.

Sigh. In the industrial revolution, coal, water driven mill wheels, and wood were the competing energy sources in the UK. Coal was more efficient then than its competitors, so it prevailed.

Now, it's coal, vs nuclear, vs hydro vs wind vs solar. Nuclear is extremely expensive, and there's no serious study done in Australia showing it to be viable, nor are any energy companies proposing it.

Ao the question then is fossil fuel vs renewables. Since renewables as we know them today didn't exist in the era of the industrial revolution, how is it remotely relevant to the debate today? Think about what you are saying here.

Why not phase out subsidies on each?

sigh all you want...its relevant because you're suggesting fossil fuels need subsidies to be economically viable...which is pure poppycock

if we are having to subsidize these industries its only because of the climate accords which we signed up to are adding a tariff that needs to be offset ...but no sane country has done such a thing

why do you think the cost of living crisis happened?

Mate, it's only a google search away. The diesel fuel rebate alone is more than is spent on the Army. For heavens sake. By all means, hold whatever opinions you want: flat earth, moon is made of green cheese, fossil fuels get no subsidies, go for it. However, who on earth do you think you can convince when such things are easily disproved?

Fossil fuels are subsidised, and far more than renewables. As for the cost of living, perhaps the price of gas had something to do with it? Last time I looked, gas was not renewable. Further, for 3 years in a row, AGL's Loy Yang A failed, and was out of action for months. That had a big effect on prices. Last time I looked, Loy Yang is a coal plant. So much for coal and reliability. Finally, the Snowy Mk2 project was majorly bungled by the Coalition government. It was supposed to be in service by now. It's stuck, blown its budget, and not producing a single Watt of power. Nothing to do with wind or solar. These are the facts.

[PeFe]

This thread has been totally derailed.......like a car on the O-Bahn!

Mods can you please move all the relevant posts over to Electrical Infrastructure (which really should be called Energy/Infrastructure)

[rubberman]

sigh all you want...its relevant because you're suggesting fossil fuels need subsidies to be economically viable...which is pure poppycock

if we are having to subsidize these industries its only because of the climate accords which we signed up to are adding a tariff that needs to be offset ...but no sane country has done such a thing

why do you think the cost of living crisis happened?

Mate, it's only a google search away. The diesel fuel rebate alone is more than is spent on the Army. For heavens sake. By all means, hold whatever opinions you want: flat earth, moon is made of green cheese, fossil fuels get no subsidies, go for it. However, who on earth do you think you can convince when such things are easily disproved?

Fossil fuels are subsidised, and far more than renewables. As for the cost of living, perhaps the price of gas had something to do with it? Last time I looked, gas was not renewable. Further, for 3 years in a row, AGL's Loy Yang A failed, and was out of action for months. That had a big effect on prices. Last time I looked, Loy Yang is a coal plant. So much for coal and reliability. Finally, the Snowy Mk2 project was majorly bungled by the Coalition government. It was supposed to be in service by now. It's stuck, blown its budget, and not producing a single Watt of power. Nothing to do with wind or solar. These are the facts.

okay kid we're done here

it really is a sad indictment on the education system these days that such delusion exists among your generation

All you have done is assert something. Not one shred of evidence. Not one line of reasoning.

[Nort]

sigh all you want...its relevant because you're suggesting fossil fuels need subsidies to be economically viable...which is pure poppycock

if we are having to subsidize these industries its only because of the climate accords which we signed up to are adding a tariff that needs to be offset ...but no sane country has done such a thing

why do you think the cost of living crisis happened?

Mate, it's only a google search away. The diesel fuel rebate alone is more than is spent on the Army. For heavens sake. By all means, hold whatever opinions you want: flat earth, moon is made of green cheese, fossil fuels get no subsidies, go for it. However, who on earth do you think you can convince when such things are easily disproved?

Fossil fuels are subsidised, and far more than renewables. As for the cost of living, perhaps the price of gas had something to do with it? Last time I looked, gas was not renewable. Further, for 3 years in a row, AGL's Loy Yang A failed, and was out of action for months. That had a big effect on prices. Last time I looked, Loy Yang is a coal plant. So much for coal and reliability. Finally, the Snowy Mk2 project was majorly bungled by the Coalition government. It was supposed to be in service by now. It's stuck, blown its budget, and not producing a single Watt of power. Nothing to do with wind or solar. These are the facts.

okay kid we're done here

it really is a sad indictment on the education system these days that such delusion exists among your generation

It's okay old man, let's take this to another thread where the woke windmills can't hurt you.

[Aidan]

Energy discussion continued at viewtopic.php?p=212925#p212925
So there's no reason to post any more non O-Bahn related content on this thread.
I remind anyone considering still doing so that the mods can move or delete posts as they see fit, and there's no longer any reason for them not to see fit.

[RetroGamer87]

If you're going to electrify the obahn and have electric buses running on it, wouldn't it make sense to either have overhead wires, or a 'powered' rail down the centre at 'ground' level like some tram systems have to power them?
I'm sure with some government funding as an incentive, the firm that builds the buses here in Adelaide could develop a charging system. Perhaps even have it adaptable to be deployed across the road network in appropriate sections? Could be a potential export windfall considering the world is moving away from combustion engines.

Overhead wire systems are reliable and able to be used by anyone. There are systems for street level charging, but they are proprietary...and as Sydney is finding out, subject to lots of breakdowns. Plus, of course, if you install a proprietary system, then you are tied into that somewhat for upgrades and replacements. People have been trying for over 100 years to develop a reliable and safe road level charging system for transport. Often the problem is that the charging system remains "live" after the vehicle passes, making it unsafe. Otoh, if it is made safe enough for that not to happen, it tends to fail in the other direction, and vehicles get stuck on dead sections. At which point, they are advised to get bigger batteries. That begs the question of why bother with road level charging?

Unsafe for streets with pedestrians crossing. But the O-Bahn is in a dedicated corridor without cars or pedestrians. This is about the only place where a live fourth rail could be used safely. For obvious reasons there would be no fourth rail in the interchange.

[abc]

Mate, it's only a google search away. The diesel fuel rebate alone is more than is spent on the Army. For heavens sake. By all means, hold whatever opinions you want: flat earth, moon is made of green cheese, fossil fuels get no subsidies, go for it. However, who on earth do you think you can convince when such things are easily disproved?

Fossil fuels are subsidised, and far more than renewables. As for the cost of living, perhaps the price of gas had something to do with it? Last time I looked, gas was not renewable. Further, for 3 years in a row, AGL's Loy Yang A failed, and was out of action for months. That had a big effect on prices. Last time I looked, Loy Yang is a coal plant. So much for coal and reliability. Finally, the Snowy Mk2 project was majorly bungled by the Coalition government. It was supposed to be in service by now. It's stuck, blown its budget, and not producing a single Watt of power. Nothing to do with wind or solar. These are the facts.

okay kid we're done here

it really is a sad indictment on the education system these days that such delusion exists among your generation

All you have done is assert something. Not one shred of evidence. Not one line of reasoning.

the difference between you and I is that I know I'm right whereas you're just hoping to win at internet

[rubberman]

okay kid we're done here

it really is a sad indictment on the education system these days that such delusion exists among your generation

All you have done is assert something. Not one shred of evidence. Not one line of reasoning.

the difference between you and I is that I know I'm right whereas you're just hoping to win at internet

Mate. This isn't O-Bahn related.

[Eurostar]

With Golden Grove expanding soon, is there enough spare capacity on the O-Bahn especially during peak periods and at the Golden Grove Park N Ride? And what bus route could be altered or extended to service the new area?

[Norman]

The Golden Grove Park and Ride only recently had a major expansion, has this filled up already?